If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Spatial, I'm on your side, these scanners are the dumbest thing that I have ever seen, now focus.

Originally Posted by SpatialD

Where does it say that taking the bus, train, or boat - or even walking, for that matter - is a constitutional right?

Just like with air travel, it does not. You DO however, have the right to stay home, or walk. The constitution is not being violated in THIS case, IMHO. You do have a legitimate grievance, but you are using the wrong logic to build your case IMHO.

Quote

The real question is where does the Constitution empower the State with the right to impose these measures? It doesn't. Not only that, but the Fourth Amendment clearly forbids this very sort of thing.

This is not a fourth amendment issue, as you have the right to ask for alternative screening. You also have the right to stay home, or seek alternative transportation. I think of it this way... If the fourth amendment applied here, so would the second, correct? In this case, if I have a CHL, why can't I just bypass all together, and exercise my CHL rights on the plane?

Quote

Then there's the Tenth Amendment, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means, if the Constitution doesn't give the Federal Government dominion over your physical body and freedom of movement, and if your own state's constitution doesn't give it that power either (which would amount to slavery in either case by any reasonable measure of COMMON SENSE), then it belongs to YOU.

Here is where I have to take deep breaths to control the blood pressure (mandatory health care comes to mind). Personally, while I am not a fan of the scanners, there HAS to be some security. Where do you draw the line? Air travel IS multi-jurisdictional. IMHO, the feds DO have a say.

Now you are really on a slippery slope. I agree about the Israeli's. They know how to do things. At the same time though, many of the American public would not like being treated that way either. When it gets to the point that Americans revolt by STAYING HOME, THAT'S when you will see change.

This is like everything else in this country right now. Money talks. When the TSA truly crosses the line, people will just start staying home. This will cost Wall Street money, and the policy will change. Sadly, I think it will have to come to random body cavity searches first, but I can honestly see it going that far in the not too distant future. I don't mean the "prison" type cavity search, but perhaps a REAL X-Ray like customs uses could be possible.

In the mean time, I'll see you in the alternative screening line, AFTER I cut to the front if in Terminal E. Have a great day.

COEX Alumni: 1999-2012

This post is just my personal opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. I claim no affiliation with any company, corporation, trade union, or association.

I never said it was a constitutional right to use any form of transportation. I was merely suggesting there are other options. And as much as you may not like it, Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution DOES give the power to the federal government to provide for the common defense. Isn't that what we are talking about here? Again though, like I said before; I think this crosses the line. There has to be a balance between protecting our freedom and liberty, and invasion of privacy. This leans too much toward an invasion of privacy.

No, I don't believe we are talking about the common defense here. As you said yourself, this crosses the line. But why has DHS/TSA crossed that line? Is it because they are so mission-focused that they forgot to preserve our civil rights and privacy in their zeal to keep us safe?

Want to know what I think? I think it has nothing to do with keeping anybody safe and everything to do with the multi-million (tax) dollar price of those machines and the manpower required to put them into service. As I mentioned in the letter, the original plan was to use WBI as an alternative to a 'pat-down' during secondary screening.

Now, all other issues aside, if you were the guy allocating the budget for these systems, how would you justify several million dollars for some gadget that's only going to be used on the tiny percentage of travelers who can't make it through primary screening and, of those, only the tiny percentage who opt for it over a standard frisking? Under the terms of the test program, those machines would have sat there and collected dust in the tradition of good ol' fashioned wasteful government spending - just another day at the office till somebody eventually pulls the plug on the program and you have to come up with some other scam.

But, if you could sell the powers that be on the idea that these machines are absolutely necessary to provide for the common defense, or, more importantly, that this idea could be sold to the public and thus justify an all-out campaign to really go the fu*k crazy spending exponentially more tax dollars than they ever dreamed possible on this little program - with the added bonus of further desensitizing the sheeple to the ever growing reach of absolute, authoritarian control over their lives - well now you've just boosted your career into the ozone. The President himself will probably appoint you the next czar of something, and you can feel all nice and smug about how you're protecting your fellow citizens as you bastardize Article 1, Section 8 into oblivion.

I'm not buying it - and I don't think you are either, really.

Originally Posted by Unverified

This is not a fourth amendment issue, as you have the right to ask for alternative screening. You also have the right to stay home, or seek alternative transportation. I think of it this way... If the fourth amendment applied here, so would the second, correct? In this case, if I have a CHL, why can't I just bypass all together, and exercise my CHL rights on the plane?...

When it gets to the point that Americans revolt by STAYING HOME, THAT'S when you will see change...

When the TSA truly crosses the line, people will just start staying home... Sadly, I think it will have to come to random body cavity searches first, but I can honestly see it going that far in the not too distant future. I don't mean the "prison" type cavity search, but perhaps a REAL X-Ray like customs uses could be possible.

In the mean time, I'll see you in the alternative screening line, AFTER I cut to the front if in Terminal E. Have a great day.

When both 'alternatives' are an invasion of your privacy and physical sovereignty over your own person without reasonable cause or provocation or even suspicion, it most certainly is a Fourth Amendment issue.

And if the rights accorded by the Second Amendment had been reinstated to the American traveler and in effect on 9/11, most likely the twin towers would still be standing to this day. But I am NOT going any further down that road with you here right now. Just let it go, people. Unverified is right, we must focus.

I wasn't really trying to build my case in that last post necessarily - just responding to JIAFDB's comment.

I don't know whether staging a revolt by staying home will change anything or not, but that's pretty much where I am at this point. Not that I intend to stage anything, for that matter. It's just that some things - quite a few, actually - are of more value to me than this job or just air travel in general. And better men than I have sacrificed far more, preferring instead to preserve their liberty (and ours, by the way). This whole insane situation dishonors them. It's shameful that so many of us can't be bothered to even lift a finger to protect the liberty passed down to us at such dear cost to our forbears AND our jobs AND our freedom of movement with WHATEVER mode of transportation we choose. With a little solidarity and resolve, no one would have to choose from among these things to the exclusion of the other(s).

So unless they come up with a better alternative, then no, you won't see me in the alternative screening line.

Last edited by SpatialD; 08-23-2010 at 08:14 PM.

Originally Posted by V2+15

I'm gonna go make a great pot of coffee. Why don't you have a nice, hot cup of STFU...

Just came across this..... a little off topic but not really. As Spatial D said in his letter...boiling the frog. I bet we will be debating about these roaming around in the streets of America before too long if we don't stand up to them in the airport now.

Alright, I cut and rearranged a couple words, but nothing substantial that needs to be posted here. Will probably send the letter tomorrow or Thursday at the latest.

The number of people signing on with us in this is pretty skimpy as compared to the number who have been willing to express their approval and agreement in spirit here and off the pipe, and I know there are bound to be others out there who haven't said a word. I can understand that on a certain level, and it's pretty much what I expected. But this is the last call, and we could sure use all the real support we can get. Anyway, thanks for all the good discussion. For some reason, it makes me think of this:

The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright --
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done --
'It's very rude of him.' she said,
'To come and spoil the fun!'

The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead --
There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand:
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
'If this were only cleared away,'
They said, 'it would be grand.'

'If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year,
Do you suppose,' the Walrus said,
'That they could get it clear?'
'l doubt it,' said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

'O Oysters, come and walk with us!
The Walrus did beseech.
'A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each.'

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head --
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

Out four young Oysters hurried up.
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat --
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more --
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.

'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'To talk of many things:
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing wax --
Of cabbages -- and kings --
And why the sea is boiling hot --
And whether pigs have wings.'

'But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried,
'Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!'
'No hurry!' said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

'A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said,
'Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed --
Now, if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed.'

'But not on us!' the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
'After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!'
'The night is fine,' the Walrus said,
'Do you admire the view?'

'It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
'Cut us another slice-
I wish you were not quite so deaf-
I've had to ask you twice!'

'It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,
'To play them such a trick.
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
'The butter's spread too thick!'

'I weep for you,'the Walrus said:
'I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

'O Oysters,' said the Carpenter,
'You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none --
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

-Lewis Carroll

...along with the helpful commentary and interpretation:

"I like the Walrus best," said Alice, "because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters."
"He ate more than the Carpenter, though," said Tweedledee. "You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn't count how many he took: contrariwise."
"That was mean!" Alice said indignantly. "Then I like the Carpenter best—-if he didn't eat so many as the Walrus."
"But he ate as many as he could get," said Tweedledum.
This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, "Well! They were both very unpleasant characters—-"

Last edited by SpatialD; 08-24-2010 at 11:36 PM.

Originally Posted by V2+15

I'm gonna go make a great pot of coffee. Why don't you have a nice, hot cup of STFU...